SEVILLANO JOEBERT COLADO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 447/2022, [2023] HKCA 572

On An Intended Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 2735 &

[2022] HKCFI 1433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 447 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 928 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 20 March 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 20 September 2022 refusing to grant an extension of time to the Applicant to appeal against the Judge’s earlier order dated 30 May 2022 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 28 March 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 13 February 2018 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  By Notice of Motion dated 24 March 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states as follows:

“1. Error of law> My application for extension of appeal and by way of summons for leave for appeal I had stated why I had late to file my notice of appeal on time. I was received the decision late and I don’t know how long bar time I have for appeal, as a lay person I would like to request to the Court of Appeal to consider the fact I raised.

2. Unreasonable decision> The lower court’s decision was unreasonable or irrational and it failed to take into account all of the relevant circumstances of the case. I would like to request to consider the fact I raised in there.” [sic]

3.  In his written submissions dated 6 April 2023, the Applicant alleges, inter alia, that the Director and the Board failed to take into account and/or give proper weight to relevant considerations and materials which they should have, and hence their decisions were illegal. He also alleges that the Court and the Board failed to observe the high standard of fairness, and repeats his fear of returning to his home country.

4.  The Applicant’s complaints in the Notice of Motion and his written submission are bare and general allegations. The Applicant has failed to identify any specific error in the CA Judgment, or any proper ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.

5.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

7.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.